5/2: Ownership gives DW vote of confidence

Again, he's talking in general when he mentions the players. You want him to take all the blame for this season? This season wasn't all his fault. There were a ton of passengers throughout the year.

And now you're just backtracking. Your first post says you want him to take full accountability for things like the PK. He did take full accountability for the PK. Now you're practically saying that doesn't count.

I disagree that he was talking in general and it's not backtracking when that is the stance I'm taking. I also said that he needed to take more responsibility and it's not just after the season is over. It is throughout the year. You're simply arguing that what he did with that one comment is enough when he didn't do that all year and failed to find a solution when it sucked last year too.

Again, he's talking in general when he mentions the players. You want him to take all the blame for this season? This season wasn't all his fault. There were a ton of passengers throughout the year.

And now you're just backtracking. Your first post says you want him to take full accountability for things like the PK. He did take full accountability for the PK. Now you're practically saying that doesn't count.

There were points where the pawned off PK issues during the year on execution. They did the same last year. It was very clearly not execution. He mitigated it by his post-season comments, but it still leaves a bad taste in the players' mouths for where responsibility was placed during the year.

There is also a bit of accountability for the coach for general play. The coaching job description is to put the guys in roles that give them the best chance to succeed. It doesn't mean just giving the two best players the opportunity; it means giving all players the best opportunities. The system being played does not really have that flexibility; it is oriented more to Couture/Clowe/JT/Boyle than it is to Burns/Marleau/Havlat. Again if the players fall short playing a less than ideal system for them, it is not so wise to jump down their throats when it fails. He talked about flexibility within the system during the playoffs, but he sure wasn't flexible with Havlat early in the year. I grant that all teams cater to their top players, but there are times when it is over the top and counterproductive.

I also said that he needed to take more responsibility and it's not just after the season is over. It is throughout the year. You're simply arguing that what he did with that one comment is enough when he didn't do that all year and failed to find a solution when it sucked last year too.

What you said was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd

And if he doesn't take ownership, then DW has to and fire all of them for a new group.

In that quote, you're asking him to take ownership with the season over. He did take ownership. You didn't mention anything about "throughout the year", which is why I'm mentioning the backtracking.

There were points where the pawned off PK issues during the year on execution. They did the same last year. It was very clearly not execution. He mitigated it by his post-season comments, but it still leaves a bad taste in the players' mouths for where responsibility was placed during the year.

Which was my entire point. PF said TMac needs to take full ownership for the PKing woes. He did that very thing in his interview.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJeasy

There is also a bit of accountability for the coach for general play. The coaching job description is to put the guys in roles that give them the best chance to succeed. It doesn't mean just giving the two best players the opportunity; it means giving all players the best opportunities. The system being played does not really have that flexibility; it is oriented more to Couture/Clowe/JT/Boyle than it is to Burns/Marleau/Havlat. Again if the players fall short playing a less than ideal system for them, it is not so wise to jump down their throats when it fails.

A system oriented more to Couture/Clowe/JT didn't seem to hinder Marleau in the prior 3 seasons.

A system oriented more to Couture/Clowe/JT didn't seem to hinder Marleau in the prior 3 seasons.

Each year, they have been cutting transition hockey. That's Marleau/Havlat/Burns. Trickle effect not a sudden sledgehammer. I was really appalled when he went after Havlat early in the year, urging him to pull up deeper. Havlat did it, but it reduced his efficacy. Burns also took a hit on PP; he was a bump on a log playing first unit with Boyle. At least with the second unit, he was able to see the puck. The same thing happens to the forward playing next to Boyle although they rotate between Pavs and Marleau as to who gets partnership duty there when they go 4/1.

Each year, they have been cutting transition hockey. That's Marleau/Havlat/Burns. Trickle effect not a sudden sledgehammer. I was really appalled when he went after Havlat early in the year, urging him to pull up deeper. Havlat did it, but it reduced his efficacy. Burns also took a hit on PP; he was a bump on a log playing first unit with Boyle. At least with the second unit, he was able to see the puck. The same thing happens to the forward playing next to Boyle although they rotate between Pavs and Marleau as to who gets partnership duty there when they go 4/1.

Good point. It just seems like a lame excuse for some to only blame the system for Marleau's poor season. Regardless of the system, some players just weren't that great for portions of this season.

In that quote, you're asking him to take ownership with the season over. He did take ownership. You didn't mention anything about "throughout the year", which is why I'm mentioning the backtracking.

You're cherrypicking and putting words in there that aren't there. I mentioned them skirting the issue throughout the year but you magically omit that portion of it. My complaint was that they weren't taking ownership of it at all and then there's his line in the exit interview but he was also putting it on the players, in my estimation. That, to me, means he isn't really taking full ownership of it. The words by themselves if you leave everything else out are nice to hear but considering that this issue was here last season and it got worse, it doesn't mean much. Then when you add, what is to me, him putting some of it on the players, it takes away from the full ownership.

Good point. It just seems like a lame excuse for some to only blame the system for Marleau's poor season. Regardless of the system, some players just weren't that great for portions of this season.

All players slump at some point every season. For whatever reason, those slumps are more strongly remembered for some than others. Some slumps for known causes, others not so much. I do think Marleau is versatile enough to have at least moderate success in any system, but if you takeaway transition, it will drop some of his game.

Some of my most frustrating viewings this season were watching the Sharks wings going on exits and in the open and either JT or Boyle holding the puck when they had a clear passing lane. Was that the coach/system or the players themselves? I will also say that of all the dmen, Boyle seemed to be the only one throwing catchable stretches. There just weren't many. Most of the stretches were of the type to be tipped after the red line to initiate zone entry and chase down. I watched the Preds tonight and was impressed by their stretch game. Hitting passes, catching them in a position for a simple spin to gain a really clean entry. They may not have won the game but the execution of that part was incredible.

The other part of their exit game that has never changed but got a little better this year (coaching credit here). Most of their exits have always looked like fire drills. There are quite a few teams where I will see all 3 forwards lined up for exit plays with options and always in their respective exit positions when the puck is turned over. I have never seen a Sharks team exhibit that discipline. Their improvement this year was the close support game (2nd forward).

You're cherrypicking and putting words in there that aren't there. I mentioned them skirting the issue throughout the year but you magically omit that portion of it. My complaint was that they weren't taking ownership of it at all and then there's his line in the exit interview

You said "they brush it off during the season talking about not reinventing the wheel". But you later follow it up by saying "If he doesn't take ownership, then DW has to and fire all of them for a new group."
Doesn't is in the present tense. You act as if he didn't take ownership at all, which he did.

And your "full ownership" argument makes no sense. What more can you ask from him. He practically said it's all on the coaches. Again, the players quote was in general, not the PK. You're just being nit picky for the sake of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd

The words by themselves if you leave everything else out are nice to hear but considering that this issue was here last season and it got worse, it doesn't mean much.

So what exactly was the point of your initial post? You want him to take ownership, and when he does, you say it doesn't mean much.

And in all fairness, they did try to fix the PK. They thought Yawney and the diamond PK was the problem, so they canned him and went with a passive small box. Now they know that the passive PK doesn't work, so they can only go up from here. Unless they do something stupid like a passive large box.

You said "they brush it off during the season talking about not reinventing the wheel". But you later follow it up by saying "If he doesn't take ownership, then DW has to and fire all of them for a new group."
Doesn't is in the present tense. You act as if he didn't take ownership at all, which he did.

And your "full ownership" argument makes no sense. What more can you ask from him. He practically said it's all on the coaches. Again, the players quote was in general, not the PK. You're just being nit picky for the sake of it.

So what exactly was the point of your initial post? You want him to take ownership, and when he does, you say it doesn't mean much.

Like I said, you're cherrypicking. I also have maintained that his ownership came with a caveat which isn't fully owning up to it. And considering that he wasn't owning up to it until the end, whatever credit you feel is deserving here is lost with what he's failed to do in this regard.

What more can you ask from the guy? How about not waiting until the season is over to even acknowledge your responsibility? Especially after last year's failure in the same capacity. And again, I disagree with the stance that it was a general comment.

And the point of the post was to show displeasure about not doing enough of it and he hasn't even with one comment.

Like I said, you're cherrypicking. I also have maintained that his ownership came with a caveat which isn't fully owning up to it. And considering that he wasn't owning up to it until the end, whatever credit you feel is deserving here is lost with what he's failed to do in this regard.

What more can you ask from the guy? How about not waiting until the season is over to even acknowledge your responsibility? Especially after last year's failure in the same capacity. And again, I disagree with the stance that it was a general comment.

And the point of the post was to show displeasure about not doing enough of it and he hasn't even with one comment.

So let me get this straight. Your post was about Todd McLellan not taking ownership of the PK during the season. You end your post saying you'd be okay with keeping him if he takes (not took) ownership of it. He takes full ownership of it in his ending interview. And now you're practically saying that doesn't count.

I can see this argument working during the next season. But at the moment, at the end of the season, he did take full ownership of the problems. That's really all you can ask from him right now.

So let me get this straight. Your post was about Todd McLellan not taking ownership of the PK during the season. You end your post saying you'd be okay with keeping him if he takes (not took) ownership of it. He takes full ownership of it in his ending interview. And now you're practically saying that doesn't count.

I can see this argument working next season. But at the moment, at the end of the season, he did take full ownership of the problems. That's really all you can ask from him right now.

And what you're basically doing is saying that it was okay to skirt the problems since it was the past and it's done. And now that he says one thing, you're letting him off the hook.

And what you're basically doing is saying that it was okay to skirt the problems since it was the past and it's done. And now that he says one thing, you're letting him off the hook.

For now, yes. At least he acknowledged that it was the coaches and the system that was at fault. Again, that's really all you can ask from him at this point considering the season is over. Now if McLellan is still the coach and the PK doesn't improve next season, then you'll have a point.

For now, yes. At least he acknowledged that it was the coaches and the system that was at fault. Again, that's really all you can ask from him at this point considering the season is over. Now if McLellan is still the coach and the PK doesn't improve next season, then you'll have a point.

Why is a third consecutive season of crappy PK'ing needed to prove this point? He's pawned these duties off the entire time and only now after a second year of failures in this regard is he acknowledging it.

Why is a third consecutive season of crappy PK'ing needed to prove this point? He's pawned these duties off the entire time and only now after a second year of failures in this regard is he acknowledging it.

Fool me four times, and it's obvious to everyone that I'm a ****ing idiot. The coaching staff has one more try to get that PK into the top-half and serious changes are made, if they aren't made at this point already.

Why is a third consecutive season of crappy PK'ing needed to prove this point? He's pawned these duties off the entire time and only now after a second year of failures in this regard is he acknowledging it.

The season before this, Yawney had full control over the PK. It's only common to think it was him and his dumb 1-2-1 that made the PK bad. This season, they noted that all 3 coaches have input in drawing up the PK strategies.

The season before this, Yawney had full control over the PK. It's only common to think it was him and his dumb 1-2-1 that made the PK bad. This season, they noted that all 3 coaches have input in drawing up the PK strategies.

Even with the responsibilities given to Yawney, it is still on McLellan for the results or lack thereof.

The people who fund the Sharks say you are correct. Money talks, .............

__________________
It disappoints me that you can write a lyric very flippantly—and not a particularly good lyric—and it can mean so much to so many people. That's disillusioning for a writer - George Michael, Careless Whisper

I thought it'd be on the person with the responsibilities...
You could blame him for hiring Yawney, but that's besides the point. You could also say McLellan took responsibility by canning Yawney.

I wouldn't put Yawney entirely on TM. Very common to hire someone with HC experience as an AC when hiring a newbie for HC. Yawney's hiring may have been at DW's insistence. And DW did have the Chicago connection. I would put Shaw, Woodcroft and Richards on TM. And Richards was from looking at results because all denied a personal connection with him before he was brought aboard. Ostensibly a merit hire (as was TM himself).